en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2425315 Comments by berdahl19 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/24/is-it-selfish-for-people-in-poverty-to-have-more-kids-because-of-their-lower-income-119-blog/#IDComment130676309 This is a great question that was brought up. In my personal opinion, I believe that it is extremely selfish for a family to continue to have kids when they cannot afford it economically. It is completely irrational for a family to have 22 kids, regardless of their financial position. No one set of parents could offer enough love and attention to family in which they had twenty two children. Now going on to the part of why it is not financially responsible for a family to continue to have kids is parents need to provide for their child's needs. They need to be financially secure to be able to give their children a lifestyle that is suitable for a human being to live. Continuing to having kids when a family, like Tammy or perhaps her father's family is completely ludicrous. Why should they not only be selfish, but completely irresponsible to not use contraception. I mean comeon, its not hard at all to be safe. I think part of the reason into why many families continue to have kids well after they are capable of being able to support, is that they aren't educated that well on the subject of safe sex, and what it will do to a child when he is brought into a family that has so many other siblings. In the parts of the world that are less educated, there is more kids being born. I wonder why these people who are less educated, less stable financially and live in poor conditions have to most kids in the country. There has to be a correlation in those three factors, and I think the American Government needs to step in and either help educate the American poverty a little more, or start passing out condoms on street corners. Families need to more considerate when they are deciding to further their families are start one. I believe that when a set or parents are setting down to decide if they are going to continue to add to their family, or start having kids, they need to first realize what they can afford and how many it would take for them to go over their total cost of a family. One thing that many poorer families claim is that it brings more love and happiness into the family, but realistically, all it does is cause problems down the road. Many kids are limited in even middle class families in the sense that they may not have as much benefits as they would have if they were an only child. In the end, every couple needs to be responsible and plan out what they are going to do when starting a family, and they need to use contraception all the time when they are not stable to have more kids. Otherwise you end up with families of 22 kids, living in tailors out in the middle of no where. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:24:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/24/is-it-selfish-for-people-in-poverty-to-have-more-kids-because-of-their-lower-income-119-blog/#IDComment130676309 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/10/do-you-identify-as-a-conservative-119-blog/#IDComment127351620 Yes, after today I still identify my self as a conservative. Honestly, if someone where to change their whole political view or what not just bases on a hour and fifteen minute class then obviously they weren't to set on their beliefs from the beginning. For the someone to completely change their view based on one lecture from one teacher is absurd in my opinion. People need to classify themselves if they choose to, but only if they are educated enough on the topics at hand and what either being a conservative or liberal means. I think that this class did have a bigger effect on the people who are somewhat undecided, and might have altered their thought process. Then again, if someone is going to declare themselves either, lets hope they took into more consideration and information on which side they support rather than just this class today. Because if someone solely bases their beliefs off of this class today, then they will surely flip flop another 20 times during their 4/5 years in college. That brings up another issue as to the people who are sooo far to the right and soooo far to the left that they don't have an open mind on every situation. Yes, I see myself as a conservative but I agree on many many liberal positions. No one should be in my opinion strictly one side, because if they are then they are limiting themselves and not allowing new knowledge and information to reach them. Those people need to stop being so close minded and look at society as a constant change. Positions and opinions are always changing in the world, and we will always have opposing sides, we just need to make sure we have an open minded approach when attacking these issues that we come across daily. I consider myself conservative not based on the fact that I choose to be that way because of my parents of what not... but based on the decisions I have made on certain issues and mostly I have come across that I support the majority of what a conservative will support. Don't get me wrong, there are tons of issues in which I am completely against what a " right winger" would support, but I believe that is the best way in addressing the issues in society today. Whatever one decides to be, or if they choose to be independent and make decisions based on every issue but still remain independent, good for them. Lets just hope that every one can address an issue with an open mind, listening to both sides of the argument and deciding which on they support. Go State. Had to get to 450 lol. Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:47:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/10/do-you-identify-as-a-conservative-119-blog/#IDComment127351620 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/03/inequality-in-home-ownership-119-blog/#IDComment126049382 The statistics that were presented in class show the true separation between races in America. While I do believe that those numbers represent a study done, I think they are somewhat misleading in the sense that it was stating who owns a house? Well, what classifies as owning a house? What about the people who live in the city, and live in low level income housing. All of those people are home owners, but do not own a home instead of an apartment. Basically, my little rant is that when people show us a statistic we need to always take it with a grain of salt, until we have been shown all of the data and qualifications on which the study executed. One of the main factors in why their is just a separation in home ownership and race is that the majority of the people that would be classified as poor are considered to be of color. To go along with that statement, the majority of poor people of color tend to live in the large cities... whether right inside the downtown city or right on the suburbs. People who are considered to be in poverty are making less than 21,000 a year and people who live in the city could barely afford to live in a box under a bridge making that.. Well, being realistic there is no way one making that much money could afford to own a house in a city, especially a major city. Now to the poor people who consider themselves white... most of them live in either the mid west of the south. They tend to either live in a farming country, with very low cost of living price. With these people living in such area's that have such a low cost of living rate, that 21,000 a year might make it feasible for them to own a house. This is just an explanation on why the stats might be a little skewed in one sense but regardless, those numbers are far to distant from each other. A reason into why a larger amount of people of color live in the cities is that the birth rate for those families is drastically larger than those of communities in the suburbs and rural areas. Birth rate in the inner cities has sky rocketed, and no one point pinpoints exactly why it is greater, just that people who are considered to be in the poverty class a 1/3 more likely to have a kid outside of marriage when they are living in an inner city. That, plus how most people tend to stay somewhat near where they grew up attributes in my opinion in why the numbers are so skewed for each race. Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:45:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/03/inequality-in-home-ownership-119-blog/#IDComment126049382 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/who-do-rednecks-look-down-on/#IDComment124443540 Stating the fact that everyone looks down on "rednecks" is a normative statement in which cannot be proven. Just because the person asking the question may look down on "rednecks" doesn't mean that everyone does. Then, we can go on to the topic as isn't every type of person looking down on everyone who isn't similar to them? We choose to act a certain way, so wouldn't everyone who decides to act a little different than us be frowned upon in our beliefs because they are not living up to standards we set ourselves, with whom we hold with the highest regard? Rednecks is a term that is generally associated with either people from the south, Alabama, Georgia and ect or people from small farm towns in Pennsylvania or the Midwest. The term "redneck" applied to people who are poor white farmers. In today's modern society being a farmer, especially a poor one is considered one of the lowest social classes one could be. And since it is only classified as white farmers, they are classifying a race in which is tip toeing the line in regards to the correlation of the N word. Both are derogatory and only one race can be in each category, and both are completely disrespectful. I do not see myself as a redneck at all, but I just find it intriguing that the person who asked the question made the claim that everyone looks down on rednecks, basically saying that they are the lowest social class in America today. If I had to choose an answer, I would use the assumption that most people make a correlation with "rednecks" and the KKK. When you pose the question..."What kind of people make up the KKK" Im sure about 80% of the answers would go along the lines of "redneck" or something similar. This necessarily isn't a fair comparison, but I can see where people make the assumption. Most of the KKK is in the south, poor white farmers are in the south, thus people have come to the assumption that the KKK is full of a bunch of rednecks. While I tend not to agree with this 100%, I can fully see where society is grouping these people together. Similar to the people who group the "ghetto" communities as full of Hispanics and African-Americans. Some people refuse to believe that they are plenty of white people, hell maybe even some rednecks who are considered to be living in the ghetto. In my opinion I just think it is completely immoral and wrong to classify people in such groups, especially when the common factor is usually a derogatory term. Why are people grouped together because of their flaws instead of their outstanding attributes? Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:50:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/who-do-rednecks-look-down-on/#IDComment124443540 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/18/what-characteristics-would-you-give-your-race-blog-2/#IDComment122636439 I don't think it is possible to classify every single combination of races, but to rather group people by a majority. I would classify myself as a mix, but with the majority being Hispanic/Peruvian. I am 50% Peruvian and then a whole lot of other European countries mixed in. I have a lot of Norwegian in me, as well as some Italian and some German. Those are just the countries I am aware of, and I would be surprised if had more European and some distant Asian blood in me from the Asians first migrated to Peru. The characteristics that I would give my race would include: Fairly tan skin. The eyes could be any combination, because I have the brown eyed trait from my Peruvian heritage as well as the green and blue eyed trait from the combination of European countries. Height would mainly be between 5'9-6'1 for males. Most of my blood is Peruvian so I would tend to believe that the majority of males would inherit that gene, and as it seems in for all of the males in my family on the Peruvian side not one is taller than 6'1. The females would be between 5' and 5'3 due to the same reason most of the women would inherit the Peruvian side and all of the Peruvian women in my family are under 5'3. My race would also have brown to black hair because on both sides of my family, I have yet to meet someone with blond hair so I am just going to assume that the majority would be brown, barring any genetic miracles. The nose would be a mix of thin nosed traits from the European side to somewhat wide nosed traits that the Peruvian side has. The eyes would be very similar to a distant Asian person. Most Peruvians have Asian characteristics in their eyes, and I believe that this is the trait that would dominate compared to the mix of European traits. Facial hair would be something that develops at a slower than normal rate, but once it does start to develop, it becomes frequent. It just won't show as early on young adolescent men as it does for some other races. That is how I would classify my own unique race, but I think we need to realize that these races are going to vary for almost every person in the world. The only person who could have the exact same race as myself would be my siblings, even my kids wouldn't be the same race as myself. When we start breaking it down like that, I find it completely irrational to classify each person by a unique race because everyone would be different and the term race wouldn't have the same meaning as it does today. Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:11:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/18/what-characteristics-would-you-give-your-race-blog-2/#IDComment122636439 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cb%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment122619498 Soc 119 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:16:59 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cb%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment122619498